BANFIELD & MCKEEVER
Case
•
[2015] FCCA 2534
•5 August 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Banfield and McKeever [2015] FCCA 2534
[2015] FCCA 2534
5 August 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Banfield & McKeever*, heard by Judge Hartnett, the dispute concerned parenting orders for the child X, born in 2011. The orders sought by the mother included sole parental responsibility, that X live with the mother, and that the father have no time or communication with X. Additionally, the mother sought an injunction restraining the father from family violence and from approaching specified locations and persons, permission to obtain an Australian passport for X without the father's consent, and permission to relocate with X to New South Wales.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child X in light of the proposed parenting arrangements, including the extent of the father's involvement and the mother's proposed relocation. Central to the determination was the assessment of the risk of family violence posed by the father and its impact on X and the mother. The court also had to consider the practicalities of international travel and the father's consent in relation to X's passport.
Judge Hartnett made orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility for X, with X to live with the mother. The father was ordered to spend no time and have no communication with X. An injunction was granted pursuant to s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) restraining the father, his servants, and agents from assaulting, intimidating, molesting, harassing, threatening, stalking, causing or threatening to cause bodily harm, or otherwise committing family violence against X and/or the mother. The injunction also prohibited the father from approaching, entering, or remaining within 200 metres of any address of a place of residence, employment, or school/childcare of X and/or the mother, and from approaching or remaining within 5 metres of X and/or the mother. The mother was permitted to apply for an Australian passport for X, with the father's consent dispensed with, and the Passport Office was requested to accept the application without his consent. Finally, the mother was permitted to relocate to New South Wales.
The court was required to determine the best interests of the child X in light of the proposed parenting arrangements, including the extent of the father's involvement and the mother's proposed relocation. Central to the determination was the assessment of the risk of family violence posed by the father and its impact on X and the mother. The court also had to consider the practicalities of international travel and the father's consent in relation to X's passport.
Judge Hartnett made orders granting the mother sole parental responsibility for X, with X to live with the mother. The father was ordered to spend no time and have no communication with X. An injunction was granted pursuant to s 68B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) restraining the father, his servants, and agents from assaulting, intimidating, molesting, harassing, threatening, stalking, causing or threatening to cause bodily harm, or otherwise committing family violence against X and/or the mother. The injunction also prohibited the father from approaching, entering, or remaining within 200 metres of any address of a place of residence, employment, or school/childcare of X and/or the mother, and from approaching or remaining within 5 metres of X and/or the mother. The mother was permitted to apply for an Australian passport for X, with the father's consent dispensed with, and the Passport Office was requested to accept the application without his consent. Finally, the mother was permitted to relocate to New South Wales.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Banfield and McKeever [2015] FCCA 2534
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
3